Effort to block Vermont order fails in appeals court

By News in Brief
Published: June 29, 2009

A Virginia woman who has been fighting for years to deny child-visitation rights to her former lesbian partner lost another round in the Virginia Court of Appeals last week.

In a case closely watched by national gay rights and conservative Christian groups, the court unanimously upheld Winchester Circuit Judge John R. Prosser’s dismissal of Lisa Miller’s latest attempt to block Virginia from registering and enforcing a Vermont court order granting visitation rights to Janet Jenkins.

Courts in both states have repeatedly ruled against Miller, who became pregnant by artificial insemination after she and Jenkins entered into a civil union in Vermont in 2000. Miller later renounced homosexuality and moved with daughter Isabella to the Winchester area. Vermont courts dissolved the civil union and awarded custody of Isabella to Miller with visitation to Jenkins.

The appeals court has now ruled against Miller three times. The Virginia Supreme Court did not reach the merits of the dispute because of procedural failings by Miller, and the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear Miller’s appeal.

“This apple must be running out of bites,’’ said Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, which joined the Lambda Legal Defense Fund in representing Jenkins.

But Steve Crampton, a lawyer for the conservative Liberty Counsel, said the battle will continue. Liberty Counsel represents Miller.

“There are several matters involving Janet Jenkins and her attempts to register and enforce rulings out of Vermont in the courts of Virginia,’’ Crampton said. “We expect sooner rather than later to be back in front of this same court making pretty much the same arguments.’’


© Copyright 2010 Virginia Lawyers Media. All Rights Reserved.

POST A COMMENT

Today's Top Opinion

Civil Procedure - Nonsuit Tolling Provision Saves Informed-Consent Claim
A med-mal plaintiff can include in her re-filed suit, her time-barred claims of failure to perform an alternative procedure and lack of informed consent, as the new claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and are saved by the six-month tolling provision, says an Alexandria U.S. District Court.
Dunston v. Huang (VLW 010-3-116) (12 pp.)

GET THE VLW DAILY ALERT

The Daily Alert from Virginia Lawyers Weekly brings you the latest legal news every morning in your e-mail. You’ll get headline news, a link to the day’s Top Opinion and more!

Click here for more info.

E-mail Sign Up:


Feeds/Web 2.0: